Export circuit connectivity with the original compiler

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that work happens in a fresh temporary directory, that original files remain untouched, what is returned (source hashes, compiler evidence, exported files), that the netlist is synthesized logic with possible placement/identity changes, and that async/cancel are supported. The untouched-original-files claim is consistent with destructiveHint=false, though it does not explicitly reconcile non-idempotent repeated compiles. Since annotations are present, the bar is lower and this adds substantial context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by return values and caveats. Every sentence carries information, though the enumeration of return artefacts and caveats is somewhat packed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates return values, discloses the temp-directory mutation strategy, async/cancellation behavior, and the synthesized-logic caveat. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including path scoping, root, async, project, workspace, and timeout. The description only gestures at async/cancellation and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb chain (copy, enable writers, compile) and the exact resource produced (structured port/instance/net connectivity). The mention of GDF/HDL/ACF/EDIF inputs and the original MAX+plus II writers clearly separates it from siblings like maxplus2_run or gdf_connections.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it is the tool that yields structured netlist connectivity, and it notes async jobs/cancellation, which hints at the async parameter. However, it never names when to prefer this over maxplus2_run or a plain compile, nor any exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.